In article de2ee785-5cd2-4908-a437-23253c22ae93
@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 13, 2:35*pm, Falcon wrote:
In article 95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1

@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 12, 10:22*am, Falcon wrote:
In article d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw
pretty graphs, but in this example
http://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see how useful a
linear trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The
data is from Roger's thoughtfully provided source. I added
another trend line that's probably a little more representative
of what's been happening lately.

You're cherrypicking, again R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued
warming", when clearly, the latest records do not show that it's
"continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can
show neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any
trend line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms,
is too great to allow meaningful inference.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last
thirty years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has
not warmed would be unthinkable.

Because, as I have said several times, the entire satellite record
shows warming, but the latest data does NOT show "continued warming".

Which is precisely what YOU just said.

What I said was that examining the latest data on its own can neither
show, nor can it not show, anything whatsoever. In other words, it
definitely cannot,"NOT show "continued warming" " It cannot be subjected
to any meaningful analysis in any way shape or form, so no statements can
be made.

You made a statement based on it. You erred in doing so, so fess up
like a man, or alternatively admit you are baffled by the logic of
statistical inference.

Good grief, this is pedantic nonsense. If you're saying that Roger's
subject line is factually incorrect, i.e. that the latest MSU data cannot
be said to show continued warming, any more that they can show that there
has been no warming, or even cooling, then we agree. That much should have
been patently obvious. The sole reason for my response was that the subject
line is misleading.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:02:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnM
wrote:

On Apr 12, 10:22*am, Falcon wrote:
In article d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw pretty
graphs, but in this example http://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see
how useful a linear trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The
data is from Roger's thoughtfully provided source. I added another trend
line that's probably a little more representative of what's been happening
lately.

You're cherrypicking, again
R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued warming", when
clearly, the latest records do not show that it's "continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can
show neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any
trend line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms,
is too great to allow meaningful inference.

But he knows that fact already; he just does not give a ****.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last thirty
years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has not
warmed would be unthinkable.

With the March data now published, the statistical significance is
now.... (Excel Spreadsheet)... 97.63% confidence that
unprecedented global warming has happened. That is a drop from
97.71% three months ago.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:35:38 +0100, Falcon
wrote:

In article 95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1
@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 12, 10:22*am, Falcon wrote:
In article d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw
pretty graphs, but in this example
http://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see how useful a linear
trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The data is from
Roger's thoughtfully provided source. I added another trend line
that's probably a little more representative of what's been
happening lately.

You're cherrypicking, again R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued warming",
when clearly, the latest records do not show that it's "continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can show
neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any trend
line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms, is too
great to allow meaningful inference.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last thirty
years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has not warmed
would be unthinkable.

Because, as I have said several times, the entire satellite record shows
warming, but the latest data does NOT show "continued warming".

Which is precisely what YOU just said.

And as you know, "the latest data" is not an indicator of climate
change.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:29:28 -0700, Peter Franks
wrote:

On 4/11/2011 4:39 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.4
The global data are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
shows a temperature rise above the surface of the land and sea.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthl...cean_v03_3.txt
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg

The data do NOT show a continued warming. THEY SHOW INCREASING COOLING,
WITH THE MOST RECENT DATA POINTS BEING BELOW NORMAL!!!

No. And since your graphs (below) show Earth is still warming, one
has got to wonder what the bloody hell you could possibly be lying
for.

Here, I've pointed it out so that you can hopefully see the light. Not
holding my breath though...

http://members.cox.net/peter.franks/UAH-MSU.jpg

http://members.cox.net/peter.franks/RSS-MSU.jpg

Lurkers -- decide for yourself. Does the data really show "continued
warming", or is Roger just another GW apologist/propagandist?

On 4/13/2011 5:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:29:28 -0700, Peter
wrote:

On 4/11/2011 4:39 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.4
The global data are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
shows a temperature rise above the surface of the land and sea.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthl...cean_v03_3.txt
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg

The data do NOT show a continued warming. THEY SHOW INCREASING COOLING,
WITH THE MOST RECENT DATA POINTS BEING BELOW NORMAL!!!

No. And since your graphs (below) show Earth is still warming, one
has got to wonder what the bloody hell you could possibly be lying
for.

http://members.cox.net/peter.franks/UAH-MSU.jpg

http://members.cox.net/peter.franks/RSS-MSU.jpg

How does it show the earth is still warming?

so, it wasn't cut-off at 2003?

note that this is when the voluntary cap&trade came-in,
on the heels (or vise-versa) of the 2nd Gulf War,
continuosly proseltyzed as being "to control the oil,"
although it did cut-off about a tenth of our supply,
at that time, I have read.

hey, if Californians are not allowed to drill for oil
off of our own coastline, how can we control the oil
in a place where it's dark when it's light, here?

On 04/14/2011 02:39 AM, Falcon wrote:
In articlede2ee785-5cd2-4908-a437-23253c22ae93
@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 13, 2:35 pm, wrote:
In article95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1

@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 12, 10:22 am, wrote:
In articled47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw
pretty graphs, but in this example
http://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see how useful a
linear trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The
data is from Roger's thoughtfully provided source. I added
another trend line that's probably a little more representative
of what's been happening lately.

You're cherrypicking, again R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued
warming", when clearly, the latest records do not show that it's
"continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can
show neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any
trend line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms,
is too great to allow meaningful inference.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last
thirty years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has
not warmed would be unthinkable.

Because, as I have said several times, the entire satellite record
shows warming, but the latest data does NOT show "continued warming".

Which is precisely what YOU just said.

What I said was that examining the latest data on its own can neither
show, nor can it not show, anything whatsoever. In other words, it
definitely cannot,"NOT show "continued warming" " It cannot be subjected
to any meaningful analysis in any way shape or form, so no statements can
be made.

You made a statement based on it. You erred in doing so, so fess up
like a man, or alternatively admit you are baffled by the logic of
statistical inference.

Good grief, this is pedantic nonsense. If you're saying that Roger's
subject line is factually incorrect, i.e. that the latest MSU data cannot
be said to show continued warming, any more that they can show that there
has been no warming, or even cooling, then we agree. That much should have
been patently obvious. The sole reason for my response was that the subject
line is misleading.


For student philosophers looking for good examples of fallacies,
alt.global-warming is a great place to start.
What you are saying is that Roger is indulging in the so-called post
hoc fallacy by implication -the Satellite MSU Data are so-and-so,
therefore warming continues. In a formal sense, this is correct - the
observation that the sun rose this morning like every day as long as
anyone can remember leads most people to the fallacious conclusion that
the sun will rise tomorrow.
However, where the fallacial arguments really take off is when we see
people applying the fallacy of false dichotomy - because Roger's
statement is not sound in the strict logical sense, it must be false -
therefore it's cooling!

On 04/13/2011 09:23 AM, matt_sykes wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:25 pm, Tom wrote:
On 04/12/2011 05:44 PM, matt_sykes wrote:





On Apr 12, 3:41 pm, Tom wrote:
On 04/12/2011 09:45 AM, matt_sykes wrote:

On Apr 12, 1:39 am, Roger wrote:
The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Satell...e_measurements

The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.http://vortex.nsstc.uah..edu/public/.../tltglhmam_5.4
The global data are graphed hehttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
shows a temperature rise above the surface of the land and sea.http://www..remss.com/data/msu/month...onthly_MSU_AMS...
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed hehttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg

Roger, its not 'continued warming'. Warming stopped. Sticking a red
line on a scatter plot does not mean its still warming.

Its clear fro the graph that its currently as warm as 1980. How is
that continued?

If you pick and choose the numbers, you can get anything you like.
Obviously you prefer your version.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I dont prefer anything (actually, a bit warmer might be quite
pleasant) . I just want the truth.

Today it's colder here than it was yesterday. Does that prove anything?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just want the truth.

Looking at your other posts, I have my doubts.

On 04/14/2011 02:40 AM, ShyDavid wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:02:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnM
wrote:

On Apr 12, 10:22 am, wrote:
In articled47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw pretty
graphs, but in this examplehttp://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see
how useful a linear trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The
data is from Roger's thoughtfully provided source. I added another trend
line that's probably a little more representative of what's been happening
lately.

You're cherrypicking, again
R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued warming", when
clearly, the latest records do not show that it's "continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can
show neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any
trend line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms,
is too great to allow meaningful inference.

But he knows that fact already; he just does not give a ****.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last thirty
years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has not
warmed would be unthinkable.

With the March data now published, the statistical significance is
now.... (Excel Spreadsheet)... 97.63% confidence that
unprecedented global warming has happened. That is a drop from
97.71% three months ago.


At this rate, in 300 years the confidence will dropped almost to zero!!
;=))

In article , Tom P wrote...

On 04/14/2011 02:39 AM, Falcon wrote:
In articlede2ee785-5cd2-4908-a437-23253c22ae93
@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 13, 2:35 pm, wrote:
In article95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1

@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 12, 10:22 am, wrote:
In articled47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw
pretty graphs, but in this example
http://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see how useful a
linear trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The
data is from Roger's thoughtfully provided source. I added
another trend line that's probably a little more representative
of what's been happening lately.

You're cherrypicking, again R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued
warming", when clearly, the latest records do not show that it's
"continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can
show neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any
trend line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms,
is too great to allow meaningful inference.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last
thirty years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has
not warmed would be unthinkable.

Because, as I have said several times, the entire satellite record
shows warming, but the latest data does NOT show "continued warming".

Which is precisely what YOU just said.

What I said was that examining the latest data on its own can neither
show, nor can it not show, anything whatsoever. In other words, it
definitely cannot,"NOT show "continued warming" " It cannot be subjected
to any meaningful analysis in any way shape or form, so no statements can
be made.

You made a statement based on it. You erred in doing so, so fess up
like a man, or alternatively admit you are baffled by the logic of
statistical inference.

Good grief, this is pedantic nonsense. If you're saying that Roger's
subject line is factually incorrect, i.e. that the latest MSU data cannot
be said to show continued warming, any more that they can show that there
has been no warming, or even cooling, then we agree. That much should have
been patently obvious. The sole reason for my response was that the subject
line is misleading.


For student philosophers looking for good examples of fallacies,
alt.global-warming is a great place to start.
What you are saying is that Roger is indulging in the so-called post
hoc fallacy by implication -the Satellite MSU Data are so-and-so,
therefore warming continues. In a formal sense, this is correct - the
observation that the sun rose this morning like every day as long as
anyone can remember leads most people to the fallacious conclusion that
the sun will rise tomorrow.
However, where the fallacial arguments really take off is when we see
people applying the fallacy of false dichotomy - because Roger's
statement is not sound in the strict logical sense, it must be false -
therefore it's cooling!

Who said it was cooling, Tom? The sole reason for my response was that the
subject line is misleading. The latest MSU data cannot be said to show
"continued warming".


--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)